Medium of Death wrote:
One thing that perplexes me is why the curfew isn't being imposed this evening but tomorrow?

These rioters need shooting.

 Verviedi wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
One thing that perplexes me is why the curfew isn't being imposed this evening but tomorrow?

These rioters need shooting.

Bullets are extremely inefficient against such a mob. A flamethrower has more shock value and is more effective at clearing large amounts of hostiles at short range.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I just imagine this will absolutely suck for the business and home owners in the area.

Expect the former to fall.

I'm watching footage of a street with lots of stolen cars facing towards the police line. Very brave officers considering these people have likely been drinking all day.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
There's a video floating around the internet of one mom standing for whats right. She finds her kid masked among the rioters and proceeds to beat the crap out of him in front of other rioters, police, and CNN. At least the situation isn't completely fethed

I'll try to put it up when I get home, on my phone now.

 nels1031 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
There's a video floating around the internet of one mom standing for whats right. She finds her kid masked among the rioters and proceeds to beat the crap out of him in front of other rioters, police, and CNN. At least the situation isn't completely fethed

I'll try to put it up when I get home, on my phone now.

I got you covered, brah,

http://theroottv.theroot.com/video/A-Mother-Beating-Her-Son-On-Liv

 nels1031 wrote:
I've seen nothing that confirms that narrative though. Could just as easily be a woman fighting back after her property was damaged or some such.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:
I've seen nothing that confirms that narrative though. Could just as easily be a woman fighting back after her property was damaged or some such.

Disclaimer: Harsh language at link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXFLTXD2Bko



It's his mom, you can tell by the way shes chasing him and you can barely make out her threats to him if you listen closely.

Relapse wrote:
Bet the people whose businesses were looted and burned as well as people beaten and robbed by the rioters would disagree..

Mayor Rawlings-Blake wrote:

“I was asked a question about the property damage that was done, and in answering that question I made it very clear that we balance a very line between giving protesters — peaceful protesters — space to protest. What I said is, in doing so, people can hijack that and use that space for bad. I did not say that we were accepting of it, I did not say that we were passive to it, I was just explaining how property damage can happen during a peaceful protest. It is very unfortunate that members of your industry decided to mischaracterize my words and try to use it in a way to say we were inciting violence. There’s no such thing,”

“What we did was manage a peaceful protest in the best way possible and when it got violent and destructive we responded to that. We have an obligation to protect people’s First Amendment rights. We also understand through the best training and best practices that we have to do everything we can to de-escalate, and those were the tactics that were deployed yesterday. Did people exploit those tactics or that space that we gave, that we facilitated to have people protest for bad? Yes, they did. But we didn’t endorse it.”

 juraigamer wrote:
Welcome to looking for excuses part 3, the never ending struggle to ignore another struggle.

 CptJake wrote:
The 'comment alone' was taken out of context.

I think the real issue is did she have decent indicators the protests would remain peaceful, and that therefore it made sense to 'give them space', or were there indicators it could turn violent, in which case perhaps how much space is given and how that space should be enforced/contained differs. And assuming for argument's sake they really did believe it would all remain peaceful, when the first indicators of that not holding true started coming in, how quickly did they adjust their plan to compensate for the change.

I submit, they did a gakky job of adjusting.

Having said that, she and the police probably also remembered the videos of the MRAPs and riot cops beating the feth out of Ferguson protestors which led to a massive escalation of the violence,and did not want to repeat those mistakes.

I don't think they made the right call here, I do think their decision cycle suffered from paralysis and fear of how police 'brutality' would be perceived by the protesters and by the media and the media's audience.

Very brave officers considering these people have likely been drinking all day.

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't know, Chicago PD has historically been a tough group. With a lot of the inner city violence there, would anyone notice?

nkelsch wrote:


Right after the funeral, reports had came in to the people leading the protests that things were turning. One of the major incidents was a High School had 300ish kids walk out after school and begin rioting. Since the alternative was murdering a bunch of kids, the police stood back and tried to get parents to "get your damn kids".

 CptJake wrote:

nkelsch wrote:


Right after the funeral, reports had came in to the people leading the protests that things were turning. One of the major incidents was a High School had 300ish kids walk out after school and begin rioting. Since the alternative was murdering a bunch of kids, the police stood back and tried to get parents to "get your damn kids".

That is an asinine comment. Police have handled riots for decades without resorting to 'murdering a bunch of kids'.

nkelsch wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

nkelsch wrote:


Right after the funeral, reports had came in to the people leading the protests that things were turning. One of the major incidents was a High School had 300ish kids walk out after school and begin rioting. Since the alternative was murdering a bunch of kids, the police stood back and tried to get parents to "get your damn kids".

That is an asinine comment. Police have handled riots for decades without resorting to 'murdering a bunch of kids'.

And yet they can't seem to arrest an adult without killing him... So I would be suspect of many of the Baltimore police's training and ability to handle arrests without harm or killing people. The last thing this situation needed was people getting injured or killed by the hands of police.

And since people in this thread seem to be advocating rubber bullets, water hoses and attack dogs, I think the alternative of securing perimeters, and doing containment was a better choice than escalating force on children. (which it was confirmed that a majority of the violent rioters at that particular location were.)

I for one think killing a man is worse than burning down a CVS, but others seem to devalue people's lives.

nkelsch wrote:
And yet they can't seem to arrest an adult without killing him...

I for one think killing a man is worse than burning down a CVS, but others seem to devalue people's lives.

 CptJake wrote:

Which excuses and which struggle are you referring to?

 CptJake wrote:
And another asinine comment. How many arrests has that police force made without killing?

nkelsch wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
And another asinine comment. How many arrests has that police force made without killing?

Talk about asinine comments... There is a long history of documented police misconduct and violence in Baltimore. People are very distrustful of the police as a whole there, and they should be due to the current policies of that city in regards to law enforcement.

The police went for containment and preventing injury to all opposed to trying to rescue 'stuff' by aggressively harming people and escalating violence. And it worked for the most part.

 cincydooley wrote:


And yet, private business owners seem to be equally, or perhaps more so, distrusting of the "regular population," otherwise CitiWatch wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Businesses pay rates and other taxes that support law enforcement. If the local authority decide to withdraw from actually policing the streets and allowing looter to run riot then they should pick up the tab for the damage, not the businesses or their insurers.

 whembly wrote:
Wo...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-university-of-baltimore-closes-amid-high-school-purge-threat-20150427-story.html#page=1

"The Purge" was actually coordinated... not spontaneous.

It's crucial to see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy. If it fails to win people over it's a futile tactic

As a nation, we fail to comprehend Black political strategy in much the same way we fail to recognize the value of Black life.

We see ghettos and crime and absent parents where we should see communities actively struggling against mental health crises and premeditated economic exploitation. And when we see police cars being smashed and corporate property being destroyed, we should see reasonable responses to generations of extreme state violence, and logical decisions about what kind of actions yield the desired political results.

I’m overwhelmed by the pervasive slandering of protesters in Baltimore this weekend for not remaining peaceful. The bad-apple rhetoric would have us believe that most Baltimore protesters are demonstrating the right way—as is their constitutional right—and only a few are disrupting the peace, giving the movement a bad name.

This spin should be disregarded, first because of the virtual media blackout of any of the action happening on the ground, particularly over the weekend. Equally, it makes no sense to cite the Constitution in any demonstration for Black civil rights (that document was not written about us, remember?), but certainly not one organized specifically to call attention to the fact that the state breaks its own laws with regard to the oppressed on a nearly constant basis.

But there is an even bigger problem. Referring to Black Lives Matter protests, as well as organic responses to police and state violence as “non-violent” or “peaceful” erases the actual climate in which these movements are acting, the militant strategies that have rendered them effective, and the long history of riots and direct action on which they are built.

I do not advocate non-violence—particularly in a moment like the one we currently face. In the spirit and words of militant Black and Brown feminist movements from around the globe, I believe it is crucial that we see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy.

Non-violence is a type of political performance designed to raise awareness and win over sympathy of those with privilege. When those on the outside of struggle—the white, the wealthy, the straight, the able-bodied, the masculine—have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not care, are not invested, are not going to step in the line of fire to defend the oppressed, this is a futile political strategy. It not only fails to meet the needs of the community, but actually puts oppressed people in further danger of violence.

Militance is about direct action which defends our communities from violence. It is about responses which meet the political goals of our communities in the moment, and deal with the repercussions as they come. It is about saying no, firmly drawing and holding boundaries, demanding the return of stolen resources. And from Queer Liberation and Black Power to centuries-old movements for Native sovereignty and anti-colonialism, it is how virtually all of our oppressed movements were sparked, and has arguably gained us the only real political victories we’ve had under the rule of empire.

We need to clarify what we mean by terms like “violence” and “peaceful.” Because, to be clear, violence is beating, harassing, tazing, assaulting and shooting Black, trans, immigrant, women, and queer people, and that is the reality many of us are dealing with daily. Telling someone to be peaceful and shaming their militance not only lacks a nuanced and historical political understanding, it is literally a deadly and irresponsible demand.

The political goals of rioters in Baltimore are not unclear—just as they were not unclear when poor, Black people rioted in Ferguson last fall. When the free market, real estate, the elected government, the legal system have all shown you they are not going to protect you—in fact, that they are the sources of the greatest violence you face—then political action becomes about stopping the machine that is trying to kill you, even if only for a moment, getting the boot off your neck, even if it only allows you a second of air. This is exactly what blocking off streets, disrupting white consumerism, and destroying state property are designed to do.

Black people know this, and have employed these tactics for a very, very long time. Calling them uncivilized, and encouraging them to mind the Constitution is racist, and as an argument fails to ground itself not only in the violent political reality in which Black people find themselves, but also in our centuries-long tradition of resistance, one that has taught effective strategies for militance and direct action to virtually every other current movement for justice.

And while I don’t believe that every protester involved in attacking police cars and corporate storefronts had the same philosophy, or did what they did for the same reasons, it cannot be discounted that when there is a larger national outcry in defense of plate-glass windows and car doors than for Black young people, a point is being made. When there is more concern for white sports fans in the vicinity of a riot than the Black people facing off with police, there is mounting justification for the rage and pain of Black communities in this country.

Acknowledging all of this, I do think events this weekend in Baltimore raise important questions for future direct and militant action in all of our movements. In addition to articulating our goals, crafting our messaging and type of action, we need to think carefully about what the longer term results of militant action might potentially be. Strategies I might suggest, and important questions I think we should try and answer as we plan or find ourselves involved in political actions are these:

Are we harming state and private property, or are we harming people, communities and natural resources? Is the result of our action disrupting state and corporate violence, or creating collateral damage that more oppressed people will have to deal with (i.e., Black families and business owners, cleaning staff, etc.)? Are we mimicking state violence by harming people and the environment, or are we harming state property in ways that can stop or slow violence? Are we demonizing systems or people?
Who is in the vicinity? Are we doing harm to people around us as we act? Is there a possibility of violence for those who are not the intended targets of our action? Are we forcing people to be involved in an action who many not want to be, or who are not ready?
Who is involved in the action? Are people involved in our action consensually, or simply because they are in the vicinity? Have we created ways for people of all abilities who may not want to be present to leave? Are we being strategic about location and placement of bodies? If there are violent repercussions for our actions, who will be facing them?
We should attempt to answer as many of these questions as possible before action occurs, in the planning stages if possible. We also need backup plans and options for changing our actions in the moment if any of the agreed-upon conditions are not the same when it comes time to act.

I rolled my eyes when inquiries in Ferguson “shockingly” revealed racist emails sent throughout local government, including higher-ups in the Police Department. I think many of us knew the inquiry of virtually any police department would yield almost identical findings. The riots in Baltimore have many drawing parallels between policy and conduct in both cities now. What kind of action brought to light for the less affected what Black people have always known? What kinds of actions will it take to make it widely understood that all policing is racist terror, and justice can only come with its permanent abolition?

Black power, Queer power, power to Baltimore, and to all oppressed people who know what time it is.

 Jihadin wrote:
Holy Crap.....Obama under the impression that only the CVS store was on fire and that media played it over and over again

 whembly wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Holy Crap.....Obama under the impression that only the CVS store was on fire and that media played it over and over again

He essentially punted it. I didn't hear him condemn the rioting... did I miss it? o.O

 CptJake wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Holy Crap.....Obama under the impression that only the CVS store was on fire and that media played it over and over again

He essentially punted it. I didn't hear him condemn the rioting... did I miss it? o.O

Yes he condemned it.

In part:

President Barack Obama on Tuesday called the recent riots in Baltimore counterproductive.
"There's no excuse for the kind of violence we saw yesterday," Obama said. People looting and burning down buildings are not protesting, they are criminals, he added.

 whembly wrote:


Dumbarses...

Spoiler:

Baltimore’s violent protesters are right: Smashing police cars is a legitimate political strategy

It's crucial to see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy. If it fails to win people over it's a futile tactic

As a nation, we fail to comprehend Black political strategy in much the same way we fail to recognize the value of Black life.

We see ghettos and crime and absent parents where we should see communities actively struggling against mental health crises and premeditated economic exploitation. And when we see police cars being smashed and corporate property being destroyed, we should see reasonable responses to generations of extreme state violence, and logical decisions about what kind of actions yield the desired political results.

I’m overwhelmed by the pervasive slandering of protesters in Baltimore this weekend for not remaining peaceful. The bad-apple rhetoric would have us believe that most Baltimore protesters are demonstrating the right way—as is their constitutional right—and only a few are disrupting the peace, giving the movement a bad name.

This spin should be disregarded, first because of the virtual media blackout of any of the action happening on the ground, particularly over the weekend. Equally, it makes no sense to cite the Constitution in any demonstration for Black civil rights (that document was not written about us, remember?), but certainly not one organized specifically to call attention to the fact that the state breaks its own laws with regard to the oppressed on a nearly constant basis.

But there is an even bigger problem. Referring to Black Lives Matter protests, as well as organic responses to police and state violence as “non-violent” or “peaceful” erases the actual climate in which these movements are acting, the militant strategies that have rendered them effective, and the long history of riots and direct action on which they are built.

I do not advocate non-violence—particularly in a moment like the one we currently face. In the spirit and words of militant Black and Brown feminist movements from around the globe, I believe it is crucial that we see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy.

Non-violence is a type of political performance designed to raise awareness and win over sympathy of those with privilege. When those on the outside of struggle—the white, the wealthy, the straight, the able-bodied, the masculine—have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not care, are not invested, are not going to step in the line of fire to defend the oppressed, this is a futile political strategy. It not only fails to meet the needs of the community, but actually puts oppressed people in further danger of violence.

Militance is about direct action which defends our communities from violence. It is about responses which meet the political goals of our communities in the moment, and deal with the repercussions as they come. It is about saying no, firmly drawing and holding boundaries, demanding the return of stolen resources. And from Queer Liberation and Black Power to centuries-old movements for Native sovereignty and anti-colonialism, it is how virtually all of our oppressed movements were sparked, and has arguably gained us the only real political victories we’ve had under the rule of empire.

We need to clarify what we mean by terms like “violence” and “peaceful.” Because, to be clear, violence is beating, harassing, tazing, assaulting and shooting Black, trans, immigrant, women, and queer people, and that is the reality many of us are dealing with daily. Telling someone to be peaceful and shaming their militance not only lacks a nuanced and historical political understanding, it is literally a deadly and irresponsible demand.

The political goals of rioters in Baltimore are not unclear—just as they were not unclear when poor, Black people rioted in Ferguson last fall. When the free market, real estate, the elected government, the legal system have all shown you they are not going to protect you—in fact, that they are the sources of the greatest violence you face—then political action becomes about stopping the machine that is trying to kill you, even if only for a moment, getting the boot off your neck, even if it only allows you a second of air. This is exactly what blocking off streets, disrupting white consumerism, and destroying state property are designed to do.

Black people know this, and have employed these tactics for a very, very long time. Calling them uncivilized, and encouraging them to mind the Constitution is racist, and as an argument fails to ground itself not only in the violent political reality in which Black people find themselves, but also in our centuries-long tradition of resistance, one that has taught effective strategies for militance and direct action to virtually every other current movement for justice.

And while I don’t believe that every protester involved in attacking police cars and corporate storefronts had the same philosophy, or did what they did for the same reasons, it cannot be discounted that when there is a larger national outcry in defense of plate-glass windows and car doors than for Black young people, a point is being made. When there is more concern for white sports fans in the vicinity of a riot than the Black people facing off with police, there is mounting justification for the rage and pain of Black communities in this country.

Acknowledging all of this, I do think events this weekend in Baltimore raise important questions for future direct and militant action in all of our movements. In addition to articulating our goals, crafting our messaging and type of action, we need to think carefully about what the longer term results of militant action might potentially be. Strategies I might suggest, and important questions I think we should try and answer as we plan or find ourselves involved in political actions are these:

Are we harming state and private property, or are we harming people, communities and natural resources? Is the result of our action disrupting state and corporate violence, or creating collateral damage that more oppressed people will have to deal with (i.e., Black families and business owners, cleaning staff, etc.)? Are we mimicking state violence by harming people and the environment, or are we harming state property in ways that can stop or slow violence? Are we demonizing systems or people?
Who is in the vicinity? Are we doing harm to people around us as we act? Is there a possibility of violence for those who are not the intended targets of our action? Are we forcing people to be involved in an action who many not want to be, or who are not ready?
Who is involved in the action? Are people involved in our action consensually, or simply because they are in the vicinity? Have we created ways for people of all abilities who may not want to be present to leave? Are we being strategic about location and placement of bodies? If there are violent repercussions for our actions, who will be facing them?
We should attempt to answer as many of these questions as possible before action occurs, in the planning stages if possible. We also need backup plans and options for changing our actions in the moment if any of the agreed-upon conditions are not the same when it comes time to act.

I rolled my eyes when inquiries in Ferguson “shockingly” revealed racist emails sent throughout local government, including higher-ups in the Police Department. I think many of us knew the inquiry of virtually any police department would yield almost identical findings. The riots in Baltimore have many drawing parallels between policy and conduct in both cities now. What kind of action brought to light for the less affected what Black people have always known? What kinds of actions will it take to make it widely understood that all policing is racist terror, and justice can only come with its permanent abolition?

Black power, Queer power, power to Baltimore, and to all oppressed people who know what time it is.

There's some real gems in that comment thread.

There's alot of bad philosophy in that article to take issue with, but I can't help but agree with the sentiment that the wider country pays very little attention to the poverty and violence in urban ghettos until businesses are burning.

 whembly wrote:
Absolutely not even close to compariable.

There's ZERO excuses for the rioting/looting. The po po should filled the bus up.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Absolutely not even close to compariable.

There's ZERO excuses for the rioting/looting. The po po should filled the bus up.

Will I find similar comments about there being ZERO excuses for lining up sniper fire on federal agents and statements that all militia members should be in police custody?

I am pretty damn certain that if any of the protesters or rioters started to point rifles at the cops they would be dead in a second and nobody here would complain about it.

 whembly wrote:

Wait... did the bundy folks assault the federal officers?

 Frazzled wrote:
In most states pointing a weapon is assault.

 whembly wrote:
Then arrest 'em! TO THE GALLOWS!

Seriously...I thought they didn't point it, and were just carrying it.

 Frazzled wrote:
No disagreement, as I stated then.

I swear I made mention of what Washington did...

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No disagreement, as I stated then.

I swear I made mention of what Washington did...

The whiskey rebellian was more wide-spread... and was generally considered the event that proved the government was "working".

Back to Baltimore... saw on trittah:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/04/28/social-media-analysis-suggests-links-between-baltimore-and-ferguson-violence/

Outsiders be coming... stay safe!

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Then arrest 'em! TO THE GALLOWS!

Seriously...I thought they didn't point it, and were just carrying it.

How these guys skated on brandishing charges, at a minimum, will forever remain a mystery to me.

 Hordini wrote:
I thought the Bundy supporters were just carrying weapons, and didn't actually point them at federal agents?

 whembly wrote:
O.o

Orioles-White Sox game will be played Wednesday, closed to public

Dude? Is it truly that bad???

 whembly wrote:
O.o

Orioles-White Sox game will be played Wednesday, closed to public

Dude? Is it truly that bad???

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
O.o

Orioles-White Sox game will be played Wednesday, closed to public

Dude? Is it truly that bad???

The question you have to ask, would anyone have showed up if the game WASN"T closed to the public.

 jasper76 wrote:

Camden Yards per game attendance average was 30,426 in 2014 for Orioles games.

Can't find figures on games vs. White Sox. I assume it would be below the average, because White Sox.

 nels1031 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Camden Yards per game attendance average was 30,426 in 2014 for Orioles games.

Can't find figures on games vs. White Sox. I assume it would be below the average, because White Sox.

I think he's referring to people avoiding the area altogether. Could've been game 7 of the World Series and people would avoid it, with whats going on near the stadium, and what happened a few days ago. The rioters were assaulting fans outside the stadium after the Red Sox/Orioles game. Saw a woman trying to reason with the rioters and they threw a can full of trash on her. One dude assaulted so bad that they had to carry him into a bar and shield him from the rioters. Rioters throwing bricks and debris into packed bars. If I knew how to link Facebook videos into this forum, I would(also at work so that doesn't help.)

Suffice to say, people are avoiding that area.

 Ouze wrote:

How these guys skated on brandishing charges, at a minimum, will forever remain a mystery to me.

 Ouze wrote:

How these guys skated on brandishing charges, at a minimum, will forever remain a mystery to me.

 Easy E wrote:
Wow, more rioting.

Just remember, inequality doesn;t matter and it is only a few bad apples.

Is this where we talking about nuking things?

 Easy E wrote:
Wow, more rioting.

Just remember, inequality doesn;t matter and it is only a few bad apples.

Is this where we talking about nuking things?

d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

How these guys skated on brandishing charges, at a minimum, will forever remain a mystery to me.

White privilege.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:There simply aren't enough police to cover everything, so they chose contain, rather than to confront.

It's an exercise in pragmatism, not an endorsement of the behavior. A few hundred police can't hold back several thousand rioters.

jasper76 wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:
[

Spoiler:

quote=jasper76 646436 7793619 d72f4e51c0d9d4660bc1a3c4fe4328e7.jpg]
Camden Yards per game attendance average was 30,426 in 2014 for Orioles games.

Can't find figures on games vs. White Sox. I assume it would be below the average, because White Sox.

I think he's referring to people avoiding the area altogether. Could've been game 7 of the World Series and people would avoid it, with whats going on near the stadium, and what happened a few days ago. The rioters were assaulting fans outside the stadium after the Red Sox/Orioles game. Saw a woman trying to reason with the rioters and they threw a can full of trash on her. One dude assaulted so bad that they had to carry him into a bar and shield him from the rioters. Rioters throwing bricks and debris into packed bars. If I knew how to link Facebook videos into this forum, I would(also at work so that doesn't help.)

Suffice to say, people are avoiding that area.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Then arrest 'em! TO THE GALLOWS!

Seriously...I thought they didn't point it, and were just carrying it.

How these guys skated on brandishing charges, at a minimum, will forever remain a mystery to me.

Spoiler:

No one pointing a weapon at BLM. I doubt BLM knew about the guy behind the Jersey barrier. Yet no one in the line pointing a weapon at BLM



Line much closer yet no one brandishing weapon at BLM in the crowd.

So far one idiot with a weapon pointed in the general direction hidden behind a Jersey Barrier

 Jihadin wrote:
Two can play that.

I've one time frame reference........the guy behind the Jersey Barrier.

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Two can play that.

I've one time frame reference........the guy behind the Jersey Barrier.

That's some of the worst handwaving I've seen. You're looking at a guy pointing a weapon at BLM agents and saying it was "just in the general direction", and "they didn't know he was there", and "here are some different people who weren't pointing weapons", so it doesn't count?

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

How these guys skated on brandishing charges, at a minimum, will forever remain a mystery to me.

White privilege.

 Ouze wrote:
You're building up a great strawman argument; since I never claimed things you are claiming I said. Whembly said he thought they were just carrying firearms, and I pointed out at least some of them pointed them.

It was more than one, but I feel like gathering more evidence might not be the best use of my time since you seem like you believe what you want to believe.

Relapse wrote:
How many federal agents were injured at the Bundy ranch vs. how many cops were injured or killed in Baltimore or Fergeson?

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
How many federal agents were injured at the Bundy ranch vs. how many cops were injured or killed in Baltimore or Fergeson?

Is that the metric we use to charge people with brandishing?

 whembly wrote:


Outsiders be coming... stay safe!

 Ouze wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I thought the Bundy supporters were just carrying weapons, and didn't actually point them at federal agents?

... are you asking this 3 posts after I posted a picture of a guy pointing a rifle at BLM agents? I feel like there's a subtle joke here I'm not getting.

Those white trucks in the picture are the BLM.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

How these guys skated on brandishing charges, at a minimum, will forever remain a mystery to me.

White privilege.

 Hordini wrote:
Carrying a rifle in a sling isn't brandishing, and there have been plenty of pro-2nd Amendment and pro-self-denfense groups who have shown up at large protests doing the same thing, both white and black who haven't been charged with brandishing.

 Ouze wrote:
You're building up a great strawman argument; since I never claimed things you are claiming I said. Whembly said he thought they were just carrying firearms, and I posted the above picture. How you took that as some sort of indictment of every single person there is unknown to me.

It was more than one, but I feel like gathering more evidence might not be the best use of my time since you seem like you believe what you want to believe. I mean, you posted a picture of a cop pointing a taser at the protesters like that makes it even stevens despite the fact the police officer is pointing it at someone who just charged them and are screaming threats and that and he's a fething law enforcement officer authorized to use force by the state in exactly that situation.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

How these guys skated on brandishing charges, at a minimum, will forever remain a mystery to me.

White privilege.

 Ouze wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Carrying a rifle in a sling isn't brandishing, and there have been plenty of pro-2nd Amendment and pro-self-denfense groups who have shown up at large protests doing the same thing, both white and black who haven't been charged with brandishing.

... but that's not what he was doing. It was unslung, and pointed at people.

 whembly wrote:
This vet ain't putting up with this gak!

 Ouze wrote:
How these guys skated on brandishing charges, at a minimum, will forever remain a mystery to me.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, I try to be consistent

It irritates me to no end that the purposes of justice and rule of law were trumped by political expediency as they were at the Bundy ranch.

Anyway, sorry for offtracking this so badly.

Drawing or brandishing a weapon is a crime in Nevada if all of the following conditions are met:

The weapon is a deadly weapon, such as dirks, dirk-knifes, swords, sword canes, pistols, or guns;
AND
The drawing or brandishing of the weapon occurs in the presence of at least two (2) other people;
AND
The weapon is drawn, brandished, or exhibited in a rude, angry, or threatening manner

 d-usa wrote:
So they had a deadly weapon
AND
It was drawn in the presence of at least two other people
AND
It was drawn by people who were rude, angry and threatening and ready, by their own admission, to kill the officer it was pointed at.

And why was nobody charged?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So they had a deadly weapon
AND
It was drawn in the presence of at least two other people
AND
It was drawn by people who were rude, angry and threatening and ready, by their own admission, to kill the officer it was pointed at.

And why was nobody charged?

1.) #whataboutery
2.) Who? When? Where? Be specific.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

1.) #whataboutery

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You mean like how Michael Brown's step father escaped inciting a riot charge for urging supporters to "Burn this motherf***er down!"?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So they had a deadly weapon
AND
It was drawn in the presence of at least two other people
AND
It was drawn by people who were rude, angry and threatening and ready, by their own admission, to kill the officer it was pointed at.

And why was nobody charged?

1.) #whataboutery
2.) Who? When? Where? Be specific.

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So they had a deadly weapon
AND
It was drawn in the presence of at least two other people
AND
It was drawn by people who were rude, angry and threatening and ready, by their own admission, to kill the officer it was pointed at.

And why was nobody charged?

1.) #whataboutery
2.) Who? When? Where? Be specific.

The guy in the prone who was hidden behind the jersey barrier. With a rifle pointed in the direction of BLM.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So they had a deadly weapon
AND
It was drawn in the presence of at least two other people
AND
It was drawn by people who were rude, angry and threatening and ready, by their own admission, to kill the officer it was pointed at.

And why was nobody charged?

1.) #whataboutery
2.) Who? When? Where? Be specific.

The guy in the prone who was hidden behind the jersey barrier. With a rifle pointed in the direction of BLM.

"In the direction of". D specifically said that the person intended "to kill the officer it was pointed at", so which officer/agent was it pointed at?

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So they had a deadly weapon
AND
It was drawn in the presence of at least two other people
AND
It was drawn by people who were rude, angry and threatening and ready, by their own admission, to kill the officer it was pointed at.

And why was nobody charged?

1.) #whataboutery
2.) Who? When? Where? Be specific.

Sorry, I had assumed you were reading the thread:

 Ouze wrote:

I also assume that you can count, at least past two. But if I need to hit up MS paint and paint a #1 and #2 to any of the random people in the picture who are present with either of the men holding one of those "pew pew" machines that qualifies as a deadly weapon please let me know so I can assist you with the mathematics.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So they had a deadly weapon
AND
It was drawn in the presence of at least two other people
AND
It was drawn by people who were rude, angry and threatening and ready, by their own admission, to kill the officer it was pointed at.

And why was nobody charged?

1.) #whataboutery
2.) Who? When? Where? Be specific.

The guy in the prone who was hidden behind the jersey barrier. With a rifle pointed in the direction of BLM.

"In the direction of". D specifically said that the person intended "to kill the officer it was pointed at", so which officer/agent was it pointed at?

 d-usa wrote:
I'm sure they can ask him. Maybe the reporter that was next to him and witnessed the conversation on the radio where he stated that he had them in his sight and is ready to fire if needed could assist.

 Jihadin wrote:

Well.......surprise no one screaming for CPS for the mom slapping her son

 d-usa wrote:
So summary for last night: mostly uneventful, large crowds of folks standing in front of the cops telling other protesters to go home, folks encouraging (and at times dragging) teenagers to go home, community leaders continuing to step up.

 d-usa wrote:
So summary for last night: mostly uneventful, large crowds of folks standing in front of the cops telling other protesters to go home, folks encouraging (and at times dragging) teenagers to go home, community leaders continuing to step up.

An emotional Brooke Baldwin apologized Wednesday for suggesting that soldiers who become police officers after returning from war are "ready do do battle" and contribute to the unrest in cities like Baltimore.

"I absolutely misspoke," Baldwin said on CNN's "New Day" Wednesday morning. "I inartfully chose my words a hundred percent, and I just wish, just speaking to all of you this morning ... I wholeheartedly retract what I said. I’ve thought tremendously about this, and to our nation’s veterans — to you, I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform, and I wanted you to know that this morning. So to all of you, I owe you a tremendous apology. I am truly sorry."

You learn as you go,” Baldwin's colleague Chris Cuomo said, giving her a hug.

The on-air apology came a day after the daytime anchor made the remarks while discussing the need for better police training in Baltimore.

"I was talking to the city councilman last week," Baldwin said. "He said, 'Brooke, these people have to live in the community. There’s a lack of emotional investment.' And a lot of young people — and I’ve been talking about this so much. A lot of young people — and I love our nation’s veterans, but some are coming back from war, they don’t know the communities, and they’re ready to do battle."

Her comments sparked an immediate backlash.

 d-usa wrote:
So summary for last night: mostly uneventful, large crowds of folks standing in front of the cops telling other protesters to go home, folks encouraging (and at times dragging) teenagers to go home, community leaders continuing to step up.

 jasper76 wrote:
Incidentally, the Orioles crushed the White Sox 8-2 in front of an empty stadium yesterday.

 Jihadin wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Incidentally, the Orioles crushed the White Sox 8-2 in front of an empty stadium yesterday.

Wait......isn't that game today?

Fans were though outside the metal fence watching

 jasper76 wrote:


Oh, maybe today. I heard the story on the radio on the ride home from work, and must have assumed it was about a game yesterday.

Thanks!

 daedalus wrote:
The amusing thing is that if they would have closed the stadium to the public in STL when the Ferguson thing was happening, that probably would have caused a bigger riot with the baseball lunatics.

 Medium of Death wrote:
So apparently one of the other prisoners in the Paddy Wagon believes that Gray was intentionally trying to injure himself by "banging off the walls". He wasn't shackled apparently.

nkelsch wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
So apparently one of the other prisoners in the Paddy Wagon believes that Gray was intentionally trying to injure himself by "banging off the walls". He wasn't shackled apparently.

Interesting, this is the first I have heard of other prisoners in the paddy wagon.

I had heard they stopped to attach Shackles to him. And there is a reputation of giving passengers a "rough ride" to mess with them on the way to booking.

If there was someone in there, in the back with him which has first hand observations, that is going to be interesting... But of course, people might discount it as manufactured just the the suspicious female eye witness in the brown case which seemed to have no reason to be where she was, but seemed to have a perfect and full accounting of the incident for the grand jury and was virtually the only witness listened to in the grand jury.

So could be that there will be no resolution to this one either. :(

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Segregation, I thought we stopped that.

 Jihadin wrote:

An emotional Brooke Baldwin apologized Wednesday for suggesting that soldiers who become police officers after returning from war are "ready do do battle" and contribute to the unrest in cities like Baltimore.

"I absolutely misspoke," Baldwin said on CNN's "New Day" Wednesday morning. "I inartfully chose my words a hundred percent, and I just wish, just speaking to all of you this morning ... I wholeheartedly retract what I said. I’ve thought tremendously about this, and to our nation’s veterans — to you, I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform, and I wanted you to know that this morning. So to all of you, I owe you a tremendous apology. I am truly sorry."

You learn as you go,” Baldwin's colleague Chris Cuomo said, giving her a hug.

The on-air apology came a day after the daytime anchor made the remarks while discussing the need for better police training in Baltimore.

"I was talking to the city councilman last week," Baldwin said. "He said, 'Brooke, these people have to live in the community. There’s a lack of emotional investment.' And a lot of young people — and I’ve been talking about this so much. A lot of young people — and I love our nation’s veterans, but some are coming back from war, they don’t know the communities, and they’re ready to do battle."

Her comments sparked an immediate backlash.

http://news.yahoo.com/brooke-baldwin-cnn-veterans-baltimore-riots-134249771.html

I saw that segment and just laughed
One heck of a bolo

 dogma wrote:
What she said wasn't inflammatory.

nkelsch wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
So apparently one of the other prisoners in the Paddy Wagon believes that Gray was intentionally trying to injure himself by "banging off the walls". He wasn't shackled apparently.

Interesting, this is the first I have heard of other prisoners in the paddy wagon.

I had heard they stopped to attach Shackles to him. And there is a reputation of giving passengers a "rough ride" to mess with them on the way to booking.

If there was someone in there, in the back with him which has first hand observations, that is going to be interesting... But of course, people might discount it as manufactured just the the suspicious female eye witness in the brown case which seemed to have no reason to be where she was, but seemed to have a perfect and full accounting of the incident for the grand jury and was virtually the only witness listened to in the grand jury.

So could be that there will be no resolution to this one either. :(

 d-usa wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
So apparently one of the other prisoners in the Paddy Wagon believes that Gray was intentionally trying to injure himself by "banging off the walls". He wasn't shackled apparently.

Interesting, this is the first I have heard of other prisoners in the paddy wagon.

I had heard they stopped to attach Shackles to him. And there is a reputation of giving passengers a "rough ride" to mess with them on the way to booking.

If there was someone in there, in the back with him which has first hand observations, that is going to be interesting... But of course, people might discount it as manufactured just the the suspicious female eye witness in the brown case which seemed to have no reason to be where she was, but seemed to have a perfect and full accounting of the incident for the grand jury and was virtually the only witness listened to in the grand jury.

So could be that there will be no resolution to this one either. :(

Really all that the other prisoner has to go on is that he was "banging" around. The whole "trying to injure himself" is just speculation on his part.

He was not walking before he was loaded into the van and chances are that his spinal cord was already partially severed at that time. A cervical fracture would pretty much render your legs and possibly your arms pretty much useless, and even make it difficult to balance using the muscles of your trunk. And if you end up just putting a paralized person, even if it is just partially paralized, into a van without securing him to anything, they will end up "banging around" whenever the van as much as speeds up or slows down, let alone make turns.

 nels1031 wrote:

 dogma wrote:
What she said wasn't inflammatory.

Can you elaborate on why you feel it wasn't inflammatory?

nkelsch wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:

 dogma wrote:
What she said wasn't inflammatory.

Can you elaborate on why you feel it wasn't inflammatory?

Considering one of the major defenses for Police Misconduct and excessive force is PTSD, I do think there should be some level of scrutiny applied to *ANYONE* Military or otherwise who tries to be a police officer who has been the target of live fire or deadly force. I think being shot at or forced to kill someone changes most people and probably might make them not a good fit for police work.

I do think there are a small few people who like the violence and authoritah and are looking for a fight, but I think that can be said about many civilians who enter police work as well. So while it is painting a large portion of a revered population with a brush, there is some merit to some of it.

nkelsch wrote:
Considering one of the major defenses for Police Misconduct and excessive force is PTSD, I do think there should be some level of scrutiny applied to *ANYONE* Military or otherwise who tries to be a police officer who has been the target of live fire or deadly force.

nkelsch wrote:
I think being shot at or forced to kill someone changes most people and probably might make them not a good fit for police work.

nkelsch wrote:
I do think there are a small few people who like the violence and authoritah and are looking for a fight, but I think that can be said about many civilians who enter police work as well.

nkelsch wrote:
So while it is painting a large portion of a revered population with a brush, there is some merit to some of it.

 nels1031 wrote:
thoroughly innacurate and debunked "broken soldier" stereotype

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:
thoroughly innacurate and debunked "broken soldier" stereotype

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_veteran_suicide

But what about the actual PTSD symptoms? What are they, and do they typically include violent behaviors, like murder?

Simply put, PTSD is “fear” based, not “aggression” based. The DSM-IV-R (Diagnostic Statistical Manual, Revised) is clear. In brief, the primary features of the this illness are:

· flashbacks
· withdrawal
· numbing
· hyperarousal
· and isolation.

Violence is not included. In fact, not one single research study exists linking violent behavior with the diagnosis of PTSD. While, anger and agitation are common symptoms of PTSD, these feelings tend to be turned inward, contributing to making it the terribly painful disorder it is. Combined with depression, it is not unusual for the sufferer to become suicidal. But a diagnosis of PTSD, in itself, does not make a person violent towards others. Again, the concern should be more that they will be a danger to themselves, not others. There is a possibility, of course, that unintentional harm could come to others as the result of a suicide attempt, not only by gunshot, but though an intentional automobile accident, jumping from a building, or any other number of self-destructive acts. John Violanti, Ph.D., in his book, “Police Suicide: Epidemic in Blue,” points out the interesting phenomenon of “suicide by suspect,” in which an officer consciously or unconsciously wishes to die and willfully involves himself in situations of extreme danger or confrontation with a criminal, thereby increasing the risk of death. Even so, in these situations the danger to others is indirect and unintentional.

The unfortunate result of this misinformation is that more and more cases are erroneously using the defense that PTSD is to blame for murders by veterans when, in fact, there were other emotional disorders and problems involved, including prior anger issues, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and substance abuse, that were more likely responsible for the individual’s violent behavior. Society already views the mentally ill as "dangerous"--we need to be very careful not to further stigmatize these people via this illness by suggesting that a violent/murderous potential exists or was the primary factor until everything has been examined.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:
thoroughly innacurate and debunked "broken soldier" stereotype

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_veteran_suicide

 Jihadin wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:
thoroughly innacurate and debunked "broken soldier" stereotype

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_veteran_suicide

I do not even have to click on the link..(if it worked ).....OIF/OEF vets are opting themselves out more then (like 10 a week or something) then opting someone else out.

Rather, the study found that the military group at highest risk for suicide are soldiers who served in the military for less than a full enlistment.

In fact, the suicide rate among those who served less than a year was 2.5 times the active-duty rate, according to the research.

And the rate remained extremely high among those who served less than three years.

...

Why are these people at higher risk, we don't have data to explain it," said Mark Reger, study lead author and deputy director of T2.

But the authors did speculate, based on previous research on why people commit suicide, that problems such as injury, a legal issue or mental health conditions that might force a person out of the military could contribute to suicidal behavior.

Or, the transition itself — the loss of identity, difficulty developing a new social support system, difficulty trying to find meaningful work after service, a sense that they are a burden or that they don't fit into civilian society -- could play a role.

"Additional research is needed to clarify what the circumstances are surrounding early discharges and how these factors may be related to suicide," the authors wrote.

Results Deployment was not associated with the rate of suicide (hazard ratio, 0.96; 99% CI, 0.87-1.05). There was an increased rate of suicide associated with separation from military service (hazard ratio, 1.63; 99% CI, 1.50-1.77), regardless of whether service members had deployed or not. Rates of suicide were also elevated for service members who separated with less than 4 years of military service or who did not separate with an honorable discharge.

Conclusions and Relevance Findings do not support an association between deployment and suicide mortality in this cohort. Early military separation (<4 years) and discharge that is not honorable were suicide risk factors.

 nels1031 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Considering one of the major defenses for Police Misconduct and excessive force is PTSD, I do think there should be some level of scrutiny applied to *ANYONE* Military or otherwise who tries to be a police officer who has been the target of live fire or deadly force.

I've never heard of PTSD used as an excuse for police misconduct, can you give me a few references please. I'd love to read them if they exist.

Also, do you think PTSD is only triggered by being in combat?

 Jihadin wrote:
Talk about paratrooper and look what pops on TV.....

Spoiler:

He got what sounds like a 14/14 and they tacked on 12 more days to his punishment. Last jump in the 82nd


Edit

Pet fish

Quite a few of us back in the day had jump buddies.....mine was a stuff frog

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

What exactly did they charge him with?

 nels1031 wrote:

Can you elaborate on why you feel it wasn't inflammatory?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

What exactly did they charge him with?

From what I've read it's kind of a "general misconduct", failure to follow unit standards/ SOP and that sort of thing... I think there was something about endangering others in there as well.

I mean, it's an Article 15, so there's no record of it beyond his military service... he doesn't get put on any "List" that people can search on the internet (aside from maybe the Skippy list?) or have to report it on any Resume, etc.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

What exactly did they charge him with?

From what I've read it's kind of a "general misconduct", failure to follow unit standards/ SOP and that sort of thing... I think there was something about endangering others in there as well.

I mean, it's an Article 15, so there's no record of it beyond his military service... he doesn't get put on any "List" that people can search on the internet (aside from maybe the Skippy list?) or have to report it on any Resume, etc.

Thanks for the info. Hopefully he thinks it was worth it, because it was a pretty cool pic!

 nels1031 wrote:
I find it inflammatory because the comment was baseless and without evidence.

The investigation by the prosecutor's office found there had been no reason to detain Gray — and that his arrest was in itself illegal, Mosby said. She said the knife that police officers found on Gray turned out to be legal.

 KiloFiX wrote:
Wait, a "rough ride" killed him? How?

Could the charges just be scapegoating given the riots?

Am not speculating one way or another but there's still lack of details.

 KiloFiX wrote:
Wait, a "rough ride" killed him? How?

Could the charges just be scapegoating given the riots?

Am not speculating one way or another but there's still lack of details.

 KiloFiX wrote:
Wait, a "rough ride" killed him? How?

Could the charges just be scapegoating given the riots?

Am not speculating one way or another but there's still lack of details.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm surprised to see appropriate charges filed - as they all clammed up I thought it would be pretty difficult to file charges.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm surprised to see appropriate charges filed - as they all clammed up I thought it would be pretty difficult to file charges.

Now to see which charges actually "stick" to any of the officers. Its seems to "Shotgun blast" of an approach.

NPR wrote:
Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr.: Second degree depraved heart murder; involuntary manslaughter; second degree assault; manslaughter by vehicle (gross negligence); manslaughter by vehicle (criminal negligence); misconduct in office

Officer William G. Porter: Involuntary manslaughter; second degree assault; misconduct in office

Lt. Brian W. Rice: Involuntary manslaughter; two counts of second degree assault; manslaughter by vehicle (gross negligence); two counts of misconduct in office; false imprisonment

Officer Edward M. Nero: Two counts of second degree assault; manslaughter by vehicle (gross negligence); two counts of misconduct in office; false imprisonment

Officer Garrett E. Miller: Two counts of second degree assault; two counts of misconduct in office; false imprisonment

Sgt. Alicia D. White: Involuntary manslaughter; second degree assault; misconduct in office

Freddie Gray case: Actions that led to charges
By Ray Sanchez, CNN
Updated 9:18 PM ET, Fri May 1, 2015

(CNN)In publicly outlining her case against six police officers in the death of Freddie Gray, Baltimore's chief prosecutor faulted what they did -- and did not do.

Among the allegations: Failure to find probable cause, illegal arrest, failure to seek or render medical aid, gross negligence and misconduct.

"The findings of our comprehensive, thorough and independent investigation coupled with the medical examiner's determination that Mr. Gray's death was a homicide ... has led us to believe that we have probable cause to file criminal charges," State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby told reporters from the broad steps of the downtown War Memorial.

Gray suffered a fatal spinal injury on April 12 while being transported "handcuffed, shackled by his feet and unrestrained" in a police van, Mosby said.

Michael Davey, an attorney for the Baltimore Fraternal Order of Police who spoke on behalf of the six officers and their attorneys, told reporters that none of the officers injured or harmed Gray. "They are truly saddened by his death," Davey said. "These officers did nothing wrong."

These are the actions that Mosby said resulted in the charges against the six, based on the statement of probable cause:

Officer Garrett E. Miller

Miller, 26, who joined the force in 2012, was one of three officers on bike patrol on the morning of April 12 in Baltimore. One of the other officers made eye contact with Gray, who began running.

Gray eventually surrendered and was handcuffed. He was "placed in a prone position with his arms handcuffed behind his back. It was at this time that Mr. Gray indicated that he could not breathe and requested an inhaler to no avail," Mosby said.

Miller and another officer placed Gray in a seated position. They found a knife in his pants pocket. The blade of the knife was folded into the handle. It was not a switchblade, and legal to carry under Maryland law.

"Mr. Gray was placed back down on his stomach at which time Mr. Gray began to flail his legs and scream as Officer Miller placed Mr. Gray in a restraining technique known as a leg lace," the prosecutor said.

The three officers failed to establish probable cause for Gray's arrest. No crime had been committed. The arrest was illegal, Mosby said.

When the police van arrived, Miller and the two other officers loaded Gray into the wagon. At no point was Gray secured by a seat belt as is required. A while later, at Baker Street, Miller and the officers removed Gray from the wagon, placed handcuffs on his wrists and leg shackles on his ankles. They completed paperwork before loading Gray back into the wagon. He was placed on his stomach headfirst on the floor.

Miller is charged with two counts of second-degree assault, two counts of misconduct in office and false imprisonment.

Lt. Brian W. Rice

Rice, 41, an officer since 1997, was one of the officers on bike patrol during the initial encounter with Gray. He made eye contact with Gray, who then ran. Rice and others failed to establish probable cause for Gray's illegal arrest. Later, Rice and two other officers handcuffed Gray and put shackles on his ankles. The officers placed Gray back on the floor of the wagon, face down.

Rice is charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, two counts of misconduct in office and false imprisonment.

Separately, records from the Carroll County, Maryland, Sheriff's Department show that Rice was taken to a hospital in 2012 because of concerns about his mental health.

The concerns were raised by another officer who is also the mother of Rice's child, according to the records. At the time, deputies confiscated Rice's guns and alerted his superiors in Baltimore.

The records show that Rice said he "could not continue to go on like this" and threatened to do something in his laundry room if the mother of his child "did not come over to his residence." His specific threat was redacted from the documents. It's unclear how long Rice was at the hospital.

Rice could not be reached for comment.

Officer Edward M. Nero

Nero, 29, on the job since 2012, was the third officer on bike patrol when Gray was arrested. Mosby said Nero held Gray down until the wagon arrived. Along with Rice and Miller, Nero failed to establish probable cause for what Mosby called an illegal arrest. Nero also assisted Rice and Miller later in cuffing and shackling Gray.

He is charged with two counts of second-degree assault, two counts of misconduct in office and false imprisonment.

Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr.

Goodson, 45, who joined the police department in 1999, drove the transport wagon. He had been directed to deliver Gray to the central booking facility.

At one point, Goodson parked the van to check on his prisoner.

"Despite stopping for the purpose of checking on Mr. Gray's condition, at no point did he seek nor did he render any medical assistance for Mr. Gray," Mosby said.

Goodson returned to the driver's seat and headed toward central booking with Gray still unsecured. After several blocks, the officer called dispatch to say he needed to check on his prisoner. He requested additional units.

Another officer arrived and, with Goodson, went to the back of the wagon. Gray requested help and said he could not breathe. One officer asked Gray if he needed a medic. Twice, Gray said he needed medical assistance. The officer helped lift Gray from the floor to a bench in the van.

Again, the officers failed to restrain Gray or request medical assistance. Goodson then responded to a separate call for assistance in an arrest.

"Despite Mr. Gray's obvious and recognized need for medical assistance, Officer Goodson in a grossly negligent manner chose to respond ... with Gray still unsecured by a seat belt in the wagon, without rendering or summoning medical assistance," Mosby said.

At the next stop, Goodson was met by Miller and three other officers. He walked to the back of the wagon to check on Gray. Goodson and the other officers saw that Gray was unresponsive.

Still, Goodson picked up a new prisoner and drove to a police station to drop him off. He failed to restrain Gray for at least the fifth time, Mosby said. Gray was no longer breathing.

Goodson is charged with second-degree depraved-heart murder, involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, two counts of manslaughter by vehicle and misconduct in office.

CNN legal analyst Sonny Hostin said the depraved-heart murder charge appeared to indicate the prosecutor believes Goodson was "one of the worst actors" in Gray's death.

"Depraved heart means he intentionally, willfully and deliberately acted with depraved indifference to human life," she said.

Sgt. Alicia D. White

White, 30, an officer since 2010, was present during one of the stops to check on Gray's condition. White and two other officers saw that Gray was unresponsive on the floor of the wagon.

White, who was responsible for investigating two citizen complaints related to Gray's arrest, spoke to the back of the prisoner's head.

When Gray did not respond, White allegedly did nothing. She had been advised that Gray needed a medic but made no effort to assess his condition.

"Despite Mr. Gray's seriously deteriorating medical condition, no medical assistance was rendered or summoned for Mr. Gray at that time by any officer," Mosby said.

Later, White and two other officers attempted to remove Gray from the wagon. He was no longer breathing. A medic later determined Gray was in "cardiac arrest and ... critically and severely injured."

Gray was rushed to the University of Maryland's Shock Trauma Center, where he underwent surgery. On April 19, he was pronounced dead from his injuries.

"The manner of death, deemed a homicide by the Maryland State Medical Examiner, is believed to be the result of a fatal injury that occurred while Mr. Gray was unrestrained by a seat belt in the custody of the Baltimore Police Department wagon," Mosby said.

White is charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.

Officer William G. Porter

Porter, 25, who joined the force in 2012, responded when Goodson asked for additional units to check on Gray. The prisoner told Porter he could not breathe. Porter asked Gray if he needed a medic. Gray said "yes" twice. The officer helped lift Gray to a bench but did not assess his condition or call for medical assistance. Porter also was present later when Goodson picked up another prisoner, and White and others discovered that Gray was unresponsive.

Porter is charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.

CNN's Scott Zamost contributed to this report.

 Verviedi wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
One thing that perplexes me is why the curfew isn't being imposed this evening but tomorrow?

These rioters need shooting.

Rubber bullets are extremely inefficient against such a mob. A water cannon has more shock value and is more effective at clearing large amounts of hostiles at short range.

Relapse wrote:
Not trying to be snarky, but in Ferguson the blame for. The troubles in that city were initially put on there being an almost all white police force and city council.
What has been the official position about the Baltimore case among the protestors?

Relapse wrote:
This gets better and better with the mayor. Now she is apologizing for what she called the rioters:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/29/baltimore-protesters-thugs_n_7172562.html

Relapse wrote:
I think, though that anyone who engages in such mayhem deserves the term, no matter their color. It's just an example of another word being put down the memory hole and a version of an attempt at thought control.

As far as the second point goes, Baltimore's city council and police force is largely made up of Black people leaving me to wonder about the disconnect is in the treatment of Blacks.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
White officers make up 50% of the department (while 28% of Baltimore residents are white) and black officers make up 47% of the department (while 64% of Baltimore residents are black). That is the disparity that people have been talking about; police department don't represent the people they are supposed to serve, leading to a disconnect among the residents (aided by abuses of power like illegal traffic stops, illegal arrests, and the incidents that we keep talking about in this forum).

Also, most people with functioning neurons understand that the race/sex of the office doesn't always correspond to whether or not they will abuse their power; there are truly great cops or every race and there are horrible cops that abuse their power of every race. Corruption is color blind.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
White officers make up 50% of the department (while 28% of Baltimore residents are white) and black officers make up 47% of the department (while 64% of Baltimore residents are black). That is the disparity that people have been talking about; police department don't represent the people they are supposed to serve, leading to a disconnect among the residents (aided by abuses of power like illegal traffic stops, illegal arrests, and the incidents that we keep talking about in this forum).

Also, most people with functioning neurons understand that the race/sex of the office doesn't always correspond to whether or not they will abuse their power; there are truly great cops or every race and there are horrible cops that abuse their power of every race. Corruption is color blind.

Then should police departments mirror the demographic make up of the community that they police?

The danger with these kinds of tweets being taken seriously is that they serve as a perfect excuse for people essentially insulated from the effects of over-policing and police murder, either by virtue of their geographic location or ethnic heritage, to demonize protesters and rioters in Baltimore, as they did in Ferguson last year.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
White officers make up 50% of the department (while 28% of Baltimore residents are white) and black officers make up 47% of the department (while 64% of Baltimore residents are black). That is the disparity that people have been talking about; police department don't represent the people they are supposed to serve, leading to a disconnect among the residents (aided by abuses of power like illegal traffic stops, illegal arrests, and the incidents that we keep talking about in this forum).

Also, most people with functioning neurons understand that the race/sex of the office doesn't always correspond to whether or not they will abuse their power; there are truly great cops or every race and there are horrible cops that abuse their power of every race. Corruption is color blind.

Then should police departments mirror the demographic make up of the community that they police?

People seem to think so, given that there have been serious pushes in just about every major metropolitan area to do exactly that.

All humans are tribal, there is no way around it. It's in our very nature, which is why we fear "outsiders" and why "othering" a political opponent is so effective. When you live in a community of people that look like you, act like you, and have similar backgrounds just like you, it's easy to see why someone coming into that community that has nothing in common with you and treating you like gak can foster distrust.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
People seem to think so, given that there have been serious pushes in just about every major metropolitan area to do exactly that.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
All humans are tribal, there is no way around it. It's in our very nature, which is why we fear "outsiders" and why "othering" a political opponent is so effective. When you live in a community of people that look like you, act like you, and have similar backgrounds just like you, it's easy to see why someone coming into that community that has nothing in common with you and treating you like gak can foster distrust.

 Ouze wrote:
I think it's a little difficult to say with a straight face that the word thug hasn't become, in some contexts, the socially acceptable version of the N word.

I think if you look at how seldom that word is used to describe, say, white kids rioting because their hockey team lost.. it's pretty self evident.

 Ouze wrote:
I think it's a little difficult to say with a straight face that the word thug hasn't become, in some contexts, the socially acceptable version of the N word.

I think if you look at how seldom that word is used to describe, say, white kids rioting because their hockey team lost.. it's pretty self evident.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:


White officers make up 50% of the department (while 28% of Baltimore residents are white) and black officers make up 47% of the department (while 64% of Baltimore residents are black). That is the disparity that people have been talking about; police department don't represent the people they are supposed to serve, leading to a disconnect among the residents (aided by abuses of power like illegal traffic stops, illegal arrests, and the incidents that we keep talking about in this forum).

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I think it's a little difficult to say with a straight face that the word thug hasn't become, in some contexts, the socially acceptable version of the N word.

I think if you look at how seldom that word is used to describe, say, white kids rioting because their hockey team lost.. it's pretty self evident.

"Based on the best information we had the following morning, we stated that the instigators among the mob were 'criminals, anarchists and thugs who came to town bent on destruction and mayhem'

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I think it's a little difficult to say with a straight face that the word thug hasn't become, in some contexts, the socially acceptable version of the N word.

I think if you look at how seldom that word is used to describe, say, white kids rioting because their hockey team lost.. it's pretty self evident.

"Based on the best information we had the following morning, we stated that the instigators among the mob were 'criminals, anarchists and thugs who came to town bent on destruction and mayhem'

Yes, that is why I didn't say "no white people have ever been called a thug, ever", FFS - 2/10

 Ouze wrote:
I'm past trying to explain the concept of context to the intentionally obtuse. My fault - it was stupid of me to have forgotten where I was for a second.

Ouze wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I think it's a little difficult to say with a straight face that the word thug hasn't become, in some contexts, the socially acceptable version of the N word.

I think if you look at how seldom that word is used to describe, say, white kids rioting because their hockey team lost.. it's pretty self evident.

"Based on the best information we had the following morning, we stated that the instigators among the mob were 'criminals, anarchists and thugs who came to town bent on destruction and mayhem'

Yes, that is why I didn't say "no white people have ever been called a thug, ever", FFS - 2/10

 cincydooley wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:


White officers make up 50% of the department (while 28% of Baltimore residents are white) and black officers make up 47% of the department (while 64% of Baltimore residents are black). That is the disparity that people have been talking about; police department don't represent the people they are supposed to serve, leading to a disconnect among the residents (aided by abuses of power like illegal traffic stops, illegal arrests, and the incidents that we keep talking about in this forum).

But what is their applicant pool like? I feel like 47% is pretty damn good....

With Baltimore it's been even more discussed the fact that very few of their officers actually live within the city:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/most-baltimore-police-officers-live-outside-the-city/

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:


White officers make up 50% of the department (while 28% of Baltimore residents are white) and black officers make up 47% of the department (while 64% of Baltimore residents are black). That is the disparity that people have been talking about; police department don't represent the people they are supposed to serve, leading to a disconnect among the residents (aided by abuses of power like illegal traffic stops, illegal arrests, and the incidents that we keep talking about in this forum).

But what is their applicant pool like? I feel like 47% is pretty damn good....

With Baltimore it's been even more discussed the fact that very few of their officers actually live within the city:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/most-baltimore-police-officers-live-outside-the-city/

47% is a decent number, but you hit the nail on the head with the applicant pool question.

I do think that it is important that a police force mirrors the community it serves. A police department is part of the community and it is not an occupying force. I think that even extends to the issue of officers not living in the city they serve. he community should see themselves when they look at their police, and the officers should see themselves when they look at their community. But the big question is "how do you achieve that". A department shouldn't throw out the top 25 applicants just to hire less qualified people that "look" like the community, which brings us to your question: what is the applicant pool like, and how do you encourage qualified members of the community to apply?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
People seem to think so, given that there have been serious pushes in just about every major metropolitan area to do exactly that.

Based on what evidence?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
All humans are tribal, there is no way around it. It's in our very nature, which is why we fear "outsiders" and why "othering" a political opponent is so effective. When you live in a community of people that look like you, act like you, and have similar backgrounds just like you, it's easy to see why someone coming into that community that has nothing in common with you and treating you like gak can foster distrust.

So should communities only be policed by officers "just like" them?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Here's an idea: fething Google it. I know the internet is hard, but give it a try.

I'm explaining some pretty basic human psychology here, not telling you I have all the answers.

 djones520 wrote:
Use a word in it's intended definition, and because a certain group of people happens to be labelled with it, it now becomes racist.

It's bull gak. Thug has a very simple definition. "A violent criminal". Not a black violent criminal, not white, just a violent criminal. I don't care what skin color you are. If your an Oompa Loompa rioting in the streets, you're going to get called a thug. Don't want to be called a thug? Don't burn your damn city down around you.

 stanman wrote:
Will gangster/gansta likewise be considered to be a racist term?

Relapse wrote:
I don't know if that particular word got the memory hole treatment yet, but when political correctness causes a mayor to say the following, you have to wonder:

"I wanted to clarify my comments on 'thugs.' When you speak out of frustration and anger, one can say things in a way that you don't mean," she wrote. "That night we saw misguided young people who need to be held accountable, but who also need support. And my comments then didn't convey that."

So rioters who are robbing other people as well as looting and burning businesses and other property are now misguided young people in need of support, and not to be insulted. Good to know.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The whole reason it's a dogwhistle is because it has plausible deniability.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The whole reason it's a dogwhistle is because it has plausible deniability.

So how do you determine if someone is using a word in accordance with it's actual meaning, as opposed to is coded meaning? Should the possible misuse of a word by a group of people prevent its usage by the general population?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The whole reason it's a dogwhistle is because it has plausible deniability.

So how do you determine if someone is using a word in accordance with it's actual meaning, as opposed to is coded meaning? Should the possible misuse of a word by a group of people prevent its usage by the general population?

You'd have to look at the way they'd acted in the past, what sort of policies they'd supported. I don't think there's ever really a need for a politician to go around calling people "thugs" to begin with? Its only real use is in tough-on-crime rhetoric that doesn't actually work.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why shouldn't they be called thugs and scum?

That's what anybody who engages in rioting and looting is.

They don't give a gak about what happened to Gray. They've taken an opportunity to have their behaviour justified by well meaning but naive people. If they cared so much they would have respected his family's wishes.

Relapse wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

You'd have to look at the way they'd acted in the past, what sort of policies they'd supported. I don't think there's ever really a need for a politician to go around calling people "thugs" to begin with? Its only real use is in tough-on-crime rhetoric that doesn't actually work.

I disagree. I've spoken with Jews that suffered during WW2 that used the term in association with Nazis. Victims of violent crime often use it in regards to their assailants, whatever the color. I think it's ridiculous for Blacks to be offended by a word that was appropriated by Blacks to describe other Blacks and try to excise it from public usage.

 -Shrike- wrote:
So, after reading some of these replies, when would you say that "thug" became a codeword relative to it being adopted by black rap artists to describe their lifestyle?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
American police kill black people with impunity"

 Medium of Death wrote:

Pretending that this is somehow widespread or indicative of all Police in your country is ridiculous.

nkelsch wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Pretending that this is somehow widespread or indicative of all Police in your country is ridiculous.

Thanks for letting us know what is going on in our own country from your thorough international news outlets.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
American police kill black people with impunity"

Yes...

It's a regular police based holocaust in the old US of A.



Pretending that this is somehow widespread or indicative of all Police in your country is ridiculous.

 d-usa wrote:


3 in the span of a month is a symptom of a problem existing. And I'm not even counting the justicied shootings here.

A guy shot in the back while fleeing.
A guy shot because a pay-to-play cop wanted to taze him when there was zero reason to even do that.
A guy killed by falsely arresting him, breaking his neck, and letting him slam around the back of a van and giving zero feths when they noticed him already passed out.

McCoy noted that this has more to do with income than race. The felony rates for poor whites are similar to those of poor blacks.

"Felony crime is highly correlated with poverty, and race continues to be highly correlated with poverty in the USA," McCoy said. "It is the most difficult and searing problem in this whole mess."

 d-usa wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
American police kill black people with impunity"

Yes...

It's a regular police based holocaust in the old US of A.



Pretending that this is somehow widespread or indicative of all Police in your country is ridiculous.

3 in the span of a month is a symptom of a problem existing. And I'm not even counting the justicied shootings here.

A guy shot in the back while fleeing.
A guy shot because a pay-to-play cop wanted to taze him when there was zero reason to even do that.
A guy killed by falsely arresting him, breaking his neck, and letting him slam around the back of a van and giving zero feths when they noticed him already passed out.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


3 in the span of a month is a symptom of a problem existing. And I'm not even counting the justicied shootings here.

A guy shot in the back while fleeing.
A guy shot because a pay-to-play cop wanted to taze him when there was zero reason to even do that.
A guy killed by falsely arresting him, breaking his neck, and letting him slam around the back of a van and giving zero feths when they noticed him already passed out.

And the media still refuses to acknowledge the white kid killed by the black cop in Utah at the same time that Brown was killed in Ferguson.

Please, let's stop pretending blacks are the only ones being killed by police officers in the US.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/21/michael-medved/talk-show-host-police-kill-more-whites-blacks/

It's more about this (from the article):

McCoy noted that this has more to do with income than race. The felony rates for poor whites are similar to those of poor blacks.

"Felony crime is highly correlated with poverty, and race continues to be highly correlated with poverty in the USA," McCoy said. "It is the most difficult and searing problem in this whole mess."